TexasCHLforum.com

hkshooter wrote: However, if you own a private business, you are not allowed to single out based on gender, race, handicap, religion, or age.

Depends Gender is often catered to or discriminated.
Hooters doesn't hire many male waitpersons.
Curves won't let men in their place.

There is housing that only allows senior citizens.

hkshooter wrote:
Remember, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limits only on the government. They do not apply to other citizens or private businesses at all.

[/quote]

If so, then how come the feds prosecute individuals for violating someone's civil rights?

I seem to recall lots of prosecutions for civil rights violations. Which civil rights can you violate and not be prosecuted? Maybe we ought to require a sign that lists the civil rights that can be violated, or maybe posting a sign that details which rights can be violated is and of itself a civil right that can be violated.

I don't believe thare has ever been a civil rights case brought successfully against the federal government. Givernments violate our rights with impunity and so do private businesses and individuals. The only time civil rights violations are classified as civil rights violations are when they fit into some liberal agenda or for "diversity's) sake.



Anygunanywhere.

Liberty wrote: Depends Gender is often catered to or discriminated.
Hooters doesn't hire many male waitpersons.
Curves won't let men in their place.

There is housing that only allows senior citizens.

You're right, but that's just because someone hasn't screamed loud enough to get it changed or those businesses shut down. I dare you to open a restaurant or store and post a "no Muslims/Jews/Christians/atheists( pick your PC poison )" sign and see how fast it gets shut down by a government entity after a few complaints. I'll give you a $1000 and eat my boot if I'm wrong.

Maybe it's like anygun said, they should have a sign with 1 inch block lettering telling us what civil right we can violate, and which one we can't.

anygunanywhere wrote:

hkshooter wrote:
Remember, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limits only on the government. They do not apply to other citizens or private businesses at all.

If so, then how come the feds prosecute individuals for violating someone's civil rights?
[/quote]

Most of the cases prosecuted for civil rights violations have been government employees. Note that the law, 18 USC 1983, says it is illegal to violate people's civil rights "under color of law". This means you have to be acting with some purported authority that the law gave you.

To tell the truth, I have never understood how that law applied to the KKK and similar groups during reconstruction, but that is supposedly who it was written for. It actually comes from the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

HKShooter,

I think you will find that people are not violating civil rights, but are instead violating other federal laws. For example, the Civil Rights Act is what makes it illegal to post the "Whites Only" sign in a business. The act may even be the same, but the person cannot be charged with violating Constitutional rights, just with violating the statutes.

No one has a right, constitutional, civil, or whatever, to carry a gun on someone else's private property.

But.......

Any business open to the public is a "public accommodation". And public accommodations are covered under various civil rights acts, in that various enumerated civil rights must be honored by the owners/operators of said public accommodations.

Unfortunately, the civil right that we know as the RKBA is not enumerated in any of the various civil rights acts that I have ev er heard of. So the owners/operators of public accommodations are not bound by law to honor that particular civil right when setting their policies.

So while the owner/operator of a public accommodation may not prohibit entry to individuals on account of their race, religion, gender, etc., there is no legal barrier that stops them from prohibiting entry by someone carrying a firearm.

For this to change, the public must come to realize that public "gun free zones" are merely targets of opportunity for nut cases and criminals.

It's more or less up to us to educate the public on this. If history is a guide, it will be a slow process. And in TX, it will be even harder because of the (misguided, IMO) views of some people who make up TX's large community of private property rights advocates.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:No one has a right, constitutional, civil, or whatever, to carry a gun on someone else's private property.

Thats noit exactly true., We as CHL holders in Texas have a right to carry into and onto private property, until or unless we are informed by the terms of 30.06. We are under no obligation to be forth coming about our armed status when we enter private property.

Liberty wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:No one has a right, constitutional, civil, or whatever, to carry a gun on someone else's private property.

Thats noit exactly true., We as CHL holders in Texas have a right to carry into and onto private property, until or unless we are informed by the terms of 30.06. We are under no obligation to be forth coming about our armed status when we enter private property.

For the WIN!!
Game, set, match.
Check mate.
Bingo.

It really is as simple as that.

Dan

Liberty wrote:We as CHL holders in Texas have a right to carry into and onto private property, until or unless we are informed by the terms of 30.06. We are under no obligation to be forth coming about our armed status when we enter private property.

This is my usual position. Once properly notified, we commit trespass if we fail to either leave the property or leave our weapon off the property. TPC 30.06 tells property owners how to enforce their rights.

Tom

Liberty wrote: Thats noit exactly true., We as CHL holders in Texas have a right to carry into and onto private property, until or unless we are informed by the terms of 30.06.

Or just flat told to leave.

Liberty wrote: We are under no obligation to be forth coming about our armed status when we enter private property.

So you're saying that we have "the right" to do something as long as the property owner doesn't know about it, and if they find out they can throw us out.

What kind of right is that?

Is that how the right to freedom of religion works?

Is that how the right to enter a restaurant, use a public swimming pool or drinking fountain, or take the seat of our choice on a bus works? If the bus company finds out you're half Inuit, can they throw you off the bus or make you take a seat in the back?

Any right to carry a firearm in pubic in this state is a limited one that is created by specific statutes.

One can argue forever as to whether or not it actually is a right (not the same as whether or not it should be), or what a right is, etc. But the fact remains that carrying a firearm is not enumerated as defining a protected class in any civil rights law that I know of, either in TX or anywhere else.

So you have no constitutional right to carry a gun in a public accommodation against the wishes of the owner/operator. And in TX, there is no statutory right either. If the owner/operator says, "No shirt, no shoes, no service.", or, "You and your gun have to leave now.", out you go or you're gonna get arrested.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Liberty wrote: Thats not exactly true., We as CHL holders in Texas have a right to carry into and onto private property, until or unless we are informed by the terms of 30.06.

Or just flat told to leave.

Liberty wrote: We are under no obligation to be forth coming about our armed status when we enter private property.

So you're saying that we have "the right" to do something as long as the property owner doesn't know about it, and if they find out they can throw us out.

Well sorta,
The property owner doesn't have ask. They could post a 30.06 sign. or hand out written notice. Or just inform the visitor that if they are packing they aren't welcome on the property. We as CHLers are under no obligation to announce to that we are packing when when we enter someones property. It wouldn't be concealed would it? As you mention later, any property owner can throw a visitor out for just about any reason.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: What kind of right is that?

I suppose its the rights assigned to us for being Texas citizens. Unfortunately its different in every other state.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Is that how the right to freedom of religion works?

I don't know what freedom of religion has to do with this discussion, but I wouldn't allow a Koran into my home, , and my church won't tolerate buttocks in the air type prayer either.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Is that how the right to enter a restaurant, use a public swimming pool or drinking fountain, or take the seat of our choice on a bus works? If the bus company finds out you're half Inuit, can they throw you off the bus or make you take a seat in the back?

Any right to carry a firearm in pubic in this state is a limited one that is created by specific statutes.

One can argue forever as to whether or not it actually is a right (not the same as whether or not it should be), or what a right is, etc. But the fact remains that carrying a firearm is not enumerated as defining a protected class in any civil rights law that I know of, either in TX or anywhere else.

So you have no constitutional right to carry a gun in a public accommodation against the wishes of the owner/operator. And in TX, there is no statutory right either. If the owner/operator says, "No shirt, no shoes, no service.", or, "You and your gun have to leave now.", out you go or you're gonna get arrested.

I don't see an arguement here. I was just clarifying the rights of the property owner and the CHL holder. I never claimed there was a constitutional right to carry. Just a Texan right of law. That I have a right to carry under my CHL into private property until the owner/operator informs me under 30.06. Him stating "You and your gun have to leave now." is proper 30.06 notification. The law is pretty clear on this, and I really don't understand the confusion. HTH

frankie_the_yankee wrote:"You and your gun have to leave now.", out you go or you're gonna get arrested.

Frankie,

That's exactly what we have all been saying! TPC 30.06 tells an owner how to enforce a no-weapons ban against CHLs. Once a 30.06 compliant notice is given..."out you go!"

Few rights are absolute. You can't yell, "FIRE" in a crowded theater, you can't carry a concealed weapon into certain locations, etc. Laws and regulations attempt to balance competing or conflicting rights.

Tom